From the influence of the devil to overzealous restorers, there are numerous strange reasons and theories behind the conspicuous lack of pubic hair on women depicted in Western art.
Truth is sculpting body hair was taking too much time and production couldn't keep up with demand, so management decided to cut costs and keep it smooth.
Men were depicted with pubes, though. See the article, too.
A female friend of mine actually did her bachelor's thesis on body hair removal across certain cultures and time periods. Fun discussions were had.
Short version, body hair removal on both women and men has been around for a very long time and is subject to changes. Depictions of nude bodies follow somewhat different rules, though. If they are at all permissible, that is.
One medieval writer even went as far as to claim that if you take the hairs of a menstruating woman and bury them in the garden, a snake will grow from the earth. (If any of our dear readers try this at home, please write in to the ABC with your results).
That question work for both gender and the answer is, it depens on which artistic mouvment. "La liberté guidant le peuple" is famous the have a bit of armpit hair and "l'origine du monde" while been painting with the clear purpose to choc the public is much hairy.
I never thought restoration have got rid of the hair. If nudity chock you, would you not rather dress people than shaving them? Anyway, restoration even get rid of whole people just because their were not white so...